Purdue UniversityPurdue e-PubsInternational Refrigeration and Air ConditioningConference School of Mechanical Engineering

2010

Impacts of Refrigerant Charge on Air Conditionerand Heat Pump PerformanceWoohyun KimPurdue University

James E. BraunPurdue University

Follow this and additional works at: http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/iracc

This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact epubs@purdue.edu foradditional information.Complete proceedings may be acquired in print and on CD-ROM directly from the Ray W. Herrick Laboratories at https://engineering.purdue.edu/Herrick/Events/orderlit.html

Kim, Woohyun and Braun, James E., "Impacts of Refrigerant Charge on Air Conditioner and Heat Pump Performance" (2010).International Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Conference. Paper 1122.http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/iracc/1122

International Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Conference at Purdue, July 10-15, 2010

Impacts of Refrigerant Charge on Air Conditioner and Heat Pump Performance

Woohyun Kim1, James E. Braun*1

1Purdue University, Mechanical Engineering, West Lafayette, IN, USA

*Corresponding Author: jbraun@purdue.edu

The paper provides detailed results that show the impact of charge level on cooling capacity, heating capacity, and efficiency for units tested in the laboratory and for some data obtained from a manufacturer. The impacts of improper refrigerant charge amount on capacity vary for different units and operating conditions. Low refrigerant charge levels can cause significant reductions in both cooling and heating capacity. Also, running equipment at low or high refrigerant charge levels may shorten its lifespan. To evaluate the economic value, Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio (SEER) and annual cost of electricity were determined for some case studies based on the tested units. The results imply that charging inaccuracies could cause significant decreases in SEER, leading to increases inthe operating costs. When the refrigerant was charged to 75 percent of normal, the SEER value decreased by 16percent and annual operating cost was increased by US$ 100 per tons, on average for all systems considered.

Continuous or frequent monitoring of charge level should lead to early detection of refrigerant leakage and avoidance of under or overcharging. These faults lead to loss of efficiency and increase in costs. Based on tests of more than 4,000 residential cooling systems in California, only 38 percent have correct charge (Proctor, 2002) and the data from Blasnik et al. (1996) and Proctor (1997, 1998) have indicated that an undercharge of 15 percent is common. Both undercharge and overcharge can reduce cooling equipment longevity, capacity, and efficiency. It has been reported that approximately 50 to 67 percent of all air conditioners suffer from improper charge or air flow problems causing them to operate 20 percent less efficiently than if they were properly installed or maintained (eg., Proctor, 1996). Another study indicated that improper refrigerant charge amount can reduce the efficiency of systems by 10 to 20 percent in the field (Downey and Proctor, 2002).

This paper provides detailed results that show the impact of charge level on cooling capacity, heating capacity, and efficiency for units tested in the laboratory at various test conditions and for existing data obtained from a manufacturer. The impacts of improper refrigerant charge amount on capacity vary for different units and operating conditions. Low refrigerant charge levels can cause significant reductions in both cooling and heating capacity. Also, running equipment at low or high refrigerant charge levels may shorten its lifespan. To evaluate the economic value, Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio (SEER) and annual cost of electricity were determined for some case studies based on the tested units.

An equipment manufacturer was contacted in order to acquire data for the effects of refrigerant charge inventory onperformance. All tests were performed at nominal evaporator and condenser airflow rates and outdoor temperatures for cooling conditions. The data were obtained through laboratory testing by the manufacturer. Although there was not sufficient data available to confirm the accuracy of the measurements, the data were regarded as accurate considering the ARI standard based procedures that the commercial company had followed. System descriptions are given in Table 1 and testing conditions are listed in Table 2.

International Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Conference at Purdue, July 10-15, 2010

Table 1 System descriptions for manufacturers’ data.System Capacity[ KW ] Compressor Refrigerant Expansion device Accumulator Assembly type

I 14.5 Tandem R-22 EEV 1500 [cc] Split

II 15.2 Rotary R-22 FXO No Split1000 [cc]

III 14.5 Reciprocating R-22 FXO No Split1000 [cc]IV 14.5 Tandem R-22 FXO 1000 [cc] Split

Table 2 Testing conditions for manufacturers’ data.

System Indoor temperature Outdoor temperature Indoor air flow rate Refrigerant charge levelDry ( C ) Wet ( C ) Dry ( C ) Wet ( C ) [ - ] Nominal Charge (%)

I

27 19 35 24 Nominal Air Flow Rate

80 ~ 100

II 60 ~ 11075 ~ 100

III 60 ~ 10080 ~ 100

IV 80 ~ 100

Figure 1 shows capacity ratio as a function of refrigerant charge for the manufacturers’ data. The capacity ratio isthe capacity at the indicated charge relative to the capacity at the rated condition and nominal charge. The capacity decreases with decreasing refrigerant charge primarily due to a drop of refrigerant mass flow rate. The flow rate decreases because of a decrease in evaporator pressure and an increase in compressor superheat. The capacity trends with refrigerant charge in Figure 1 are similar for the different systems. However, the impact of low charge on capacity seems to be less for system I. This system employed an electronic expansion valve (EEV) which adjusts the mass flow rate in response to reduced refrigerant charge. Systems II and III included data obtained both with and without a suction line accumulator. The accumulator seems to have little impact on the effect of refrigerant charge on cooling capacity. In general, a 30% reduction in charge resulted in about a 30% reduction in capacity for the systems considered.

Figure 2 shows the impact of refrigerant charge on COP ratio, which is the ratio of the COP at the indicated charge to the COP at the same conditions and nominal charge. The COP decreases with decreasing charge because lower evaporating pressure and higher compressor superheat lead to higher specific work. The impacts are less for the EEV system over the charge levels considered because the EEV controls compressor superheat. The impact of charge on COP seems to be greater for systems with accumulators.

The previously tested units included residential split systems with either an EEV or FXO as the expansion device. Most of these tests did not cover a wide range of refrigerant charge levels and there was no data at low outdoor temperature conditions for cooling. In addition, there were no tests for heat pump operation in heating mode. Newtests were performed to consider heat pump units that incorporate a low side accumulator and that considered a wide range refrigerant charges and indoor and outdoor conditions in both cooling and heating mode. Specifications of the units are given in Table 3 and the testing conditions in cooling and heating mode are given in Table 4.

Table 5 lists uncertainties of the dependent variables for the steady-state tests. The average differences between air and refrigerant-side capacities were approximately 3.6 percent. The uncertainty in the superheat and subcooling was estimated to be ±0.6 C on average. Due to the fact that the refrigerant mass flow meter fluctuated at ambient temperatures lower than 10 C, the refrigerant-side capacities were not measured at these conditions and only air-side capacities were used for these tests.

International Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Conference at Purdue, July 10-15, 2010

Table 3 System description for laboratory tests System Size (ton) Refrigerant Type Expansion Device Accumulator Assembly Type

V 3.0 R-22 TXV (Cooling / Heating) yes Split

VI 3.0 R-410a TXV ( Cooling ) yes SplitFXO ( Heating )

Table 4 Testing conditions of new laboratory test

System Mode

Indoor / Outdoor Temperature Indoor UnitAir Flow Rate

RefrigerantCharge LevelA B C D E F

(C) ( CFM ) (%)

V Cooling 20/ 10 20/ 35 20/ 45 20/ 10 20/ 35 20/ 45 800(a,b,c), 1600(d,e,f) 70 ~ 130Heating 21/ -8 21/ 1 21/ 8 21/ -8 21/ 1 21/ 8 900(a,b,c), 1500(d,e,f)

VI Cooling 21/ 4 21/ 35 21/ 51 27/ 4 27/ 4 1000 40 ~ 130Heating 15/ -8 15/ 8 15/16 21/-8 28/-8 1000

Table 5 Average uncertainties of the independent and dependent variables for laboratory test

Independent Variables Uncertainty(absolute or relative) Dependent Variables Uncertainty

(absolute or relative)Refrigerant side temperature ± 0.5 ˚C Indoor air flow rate ± 10 g/s

Air Side temperature ± 1.0 ˚C Subcooling degree ± 0.6 ˚CRefrigerant temperature ± 0.8 kPa Superheat degree ± 0.6 ˚C

Barometric pressure ± 0.03 kPa Airside capacity ± 2.5%Dew point ± 0.2 ˚C Refrigerant capacity ± 1%

Refrigerant mass flow rate ± 0.27 g/s COP ± 3.5% Power ± 10 W - -

Figures 3 to 6 show the effect of charge on cooling capacity and COP ratio for system V at the different ambient temperatures and indoor air flow rates. The results referenced to the rated operating point with normal refrigerant charge. Overall, there was much lower degradation in capacity and COP with changes in the refrigerant charge as compared with the FXO systems. On average, a charge decrease of 30 percent reduced the cooling capacity by 7

Fig. 1 Impact of charge on capacity for existing test data Fig. 2 Impact of charge on COP for existing test data

International Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Conference at Purdue, July 10-15, 2010

percent and the COP by 9 percent for this system test. The TXV adjusts the mass flow rate of the system in response to changes in refrigerant charge. In cooling mode, the trends were similar for the different ambient temperatures and indoor air flow rates. However, in heating mode, the sensitivity of capacity and COP to charge was less at low ambient temperatures.

Figures 7 to 10 give capacity and COP ratio as a function of charge for system VI at different ambient and indoor conditions in both cooling and heating mode. This system incorporates a TXO for cooling mode and a FXO in heating mode. In both modes, the impact of charge on both capacity and COP is very significant below 70 percent of nominal charge. Below 70 percent, the TXV in cooling mode is probably wide open and the operation is similar to that for a FXO system. On average, the test data in cooling mode indicated that an undercharge of refrigerant by 60 percent reduced the cooling capacity by 70 percent and energy efficiency by 65 percent. Overcharging tends to increase capacity, particularly at higher indoor air temperatures. On average, overcharging by 30 percent increased cooling capacity by 20 percent, whereas the energy efficiency was decreased by 10 percent. The trends and magnitudes of the degradations are similar for both cooling and heating modes.

Fig. 3 Cooling capacity for system V with accumulatorand TXV at different ambient temperature conditions

Fig.4 Heating capacity for system V with accumulatorand TXV at different ambient temperature conditions

Fig. 5 Cooling COP for system V with accumulator and TXV at different ambient temperature conditions

Fig. 6 Heating COP for system V with accumulator and TXV at different ambient temperature conditions

International Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Conference at Purdue, July 10-15, 2010

To provide information on the impact of refrigerant charge on operating costs for cooling, SEER and annual cost of electricity were used. The efficiency of air conditioners is rated using SEER which is defined by the Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute in its standard ARI 210. The SEER rating is the Btu of cooling output during a typical cooling-season divided by the total electric energy input in watt-hours during the same period. The higher the SEER rating of a unit, the more energy efficient it is.

The average electricity cost for the cost calculation was assumed to be 0.12$/kWh, based on the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s Electric Power Monthly (released on February 13, 2009). Table 6 shows the bin weather data used in calculating SEER. The SEER equation was obtained from the ARI 210 Standard.

Fig. 8 Cooling Capacity for system VI with accumulatorand TXV at different ambient temperature conditions

Fig.10Heating Capacity for system VI with accumulatorand TXV at different ambient temperature conditions

Fig. 9 Cooling COP for system VI with accumulator and TXV at different ambient temperature conditions

Fig. 11 Heating COP for system VI with accumulatorand TXV at different ambient temperature conditions

International Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Conference at Purdue, July 10-15, 2010

Table 6 Bin Weather data for SEER Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

OD Temp. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38Occurring Hrs. 196 225 225 240 181 122 93 92 35 11 6 4 0 0 0

The annual cost of electric power consumed for an air conditioner having a specified rated capacity (Btu/h), number of operating hours per year (h), SEER rating, and cost per kW·h of electrical usage ($/kW·h) is estimated as follows.

1000)/($.)(..)/(($)...

1SEERkwhrateselectrichyearperhourhBtuUnitSizePowerofCostAnnual (7)

Figures 12 and 13 show SEER and annual cost ratio of electricity that were determined using the existing and new laboratory test data as a function of charge level. The SEER ratio is the ratio of the SEER at the indicated charge tothe rated SEER. Costs were estimated using the SEER, nominal capacity, estimated runtime, and average cost of electricity. The cost ratio is the ratio of the annual costs at the indicated charge to the cost at the same conditions and nominal charge. Low refrigerant charge can cause decreases in SEER with significantly higher operating costs.

For the systems considered, the performance and cost penalties for insufficient refrigerant charge were more significant when an accumulator was employed. Overall, the penalties are greater than about 10% when the refrigerant is less than 85% of normal charge. Table 8 shows example results for impacts of reduced charge levels on the SEER and annual cost of electricity for the laboratory test units and data obtained from the manufacturers. In the case of system V without an accumulator, a 75 percent of refrigerant charge reduced the energy efficiency by 15 percent. This led to a decrease in the SEER value by 20 percent. For typical utility rates, the annual operating cost would increase by about US$ 100 per ton for this system. For system VI, A reduction of charge level by 60 percent decreased the SEER ratio by 46 percent, resulting in an estimated annual cost penalty of US$ 500 per ton.

Fig. 12 The average SEER ratio for all testing data based on the refrigerant charge

Fig. 13 The average annual cost ratio for all testing data based on the refrigerant charge

International Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Conference at Purdue, July 10-15, 2010

Table 8 SEER and the annual cost of power for cooling testing data

System Accumulator Charge Level SEER Annual cost of power per unit rated capacity[%] [ -] [US$/Ton]

IIyes 62.5 7.8 865

100 10.3 656

no 75 8.8 723100 10.2 667

III no 60 6.2 1055100 9.5 687

IV yes 58.4 6.5 1042100 10.9 621

V yes 75 10.96 581100 13.7 481

VI yes 40 6.93 951100 14.64 450

Important performance indices for an air conditioner are cooling capacity and COP. Undercharge or overcharge can reduce air conditioner life, capacity, and efficiency. For systems with a FXO, there is a rapid reduction in both cooling capacity and energy efficiency with decreasing refrigerant charge level. For systems with TXV, both capacity and COP do not decrease significantly until the refrigerant charge level reaches around 70 percent. When the charge level is under 70 percent, the TXV becomes fully open and then the system acts like a system having aFXO.

According to previous research on residential air conditioners, about 55 percent of systems are undercharged by 10 to 30 percent due to incorrect measurement of charging amount during installations or service. Based on the situations that are commonly encountered in the field, refrigerant undercharging in the range of 12 to 19 percent can lead to an average reduction of 12.87 percent in cooling capacity and 7.6 percent in energy efficiency. Furthermore, an undercharge of about 25 percent would cause an average penalty in SEER of about 16 percent and a cost penalty of US$ 100 per year per ton of rated capacity for typical electricity rates. These penalties could be considered as cost savings associated with improving refrigerant charge levels.

This work was co-supported by the California Energy Commission (CEC), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and the Purdue Research Foundation.

Ai Dependent variableCOP Coefficient of performanceEEV Electronic expansion valve air AirFXO Fixed orifice cond Condensingh Enthalpy [J/kg] cooling Cooling modeQ Heat transfer rate [W] evap Evaporatingm Mass flow rate [kg/s] fan Fan SEER Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio heating Heating modeTXV Thermostatic expansion valve in Inlet

International Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Conference at Purdue, July 10-15, 2010

Power Power consumption [W] indoor Indoor unitwA Total uncertainty outdoor Outdoor unitZi independent variables rated Nominal total

ref Refrigeranttotal Total

ASHRAE, 1988, Standard 37, “Methods of testing for rating unitary air-conditioning and heat pump equipment”,American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning engineers, Atlanta, GA.

ASHRAE, 1995, Standard 116, “Methods of testing for rating seasonal efficiency of unitary air-conditioners and heat pumps”, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning engineers, Atlanta, GA.

Cowan, A., 2004, Review of recent commercial rooftop unit field studies in the Pacific Northwest and California. Northwest Power and Conservation Council and Regional Technical Forum, Portland, Oregon, October 8

Downey, T. and Proctor, J., 2002, “What Can 13,000 Air Conditioners Tell Us?” In Proceedings of the ACEEE 2002 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, 1:53-68. Washington D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

Klein, S. A., and Alvarado, F.L., 2001, Engineering Equation Solver (EES), F-Chart Software, Madison. WI. Kline, S. J., and McClintock, F.A., 1953, “Describing uncertainties in single-sample experiments,” Mechanical \

Engineering, Vol.75, pp3-8 Proctor, J. and Downey, T., 1996, “Heat Pump and Air Conditioner Performance”, Handout from oral presentation.

Affordable Comfort Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, March 26-31.Proctor, J., 1997, “Field Measurements of New Residential Air Conditioners in Phoenix, Arizona”, ASHRAE

Transactions ,103(1): 406-415. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.

Proctor, J. 1998, “Monitored in-situ Performance of Residential Air-Conditioning Systems”, ASHRAE Transactions, 104(1): 1833-1840. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.